Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Tina Fey gives nerds hope Previous entry: Travesty: Bush to receive ‘International Medal of Peace’ on 20th World AIDS Day

The Confederate flag and the war on Christmas

Digby had a couple of interesting posts up over the weekend about the ugly, racist reaction to Obama’s win.  The first was a piece about a couple in Arkansas that owns a hotel and has run up the Confederate flag where they used to have the American flag to protest the election of a black President.  Of course, they deny that their intentions are racist—-it’s not that he’s black, he’s a bunch of dog whistles and code words to indicate that he’s black.  There’s a difference, you know.  He’s infected with The Socialism, which they probably think manifests itself by darkening your pigmentation. (Why not?  As Digby points out, these people don’t really grasp what “socialism” means in any realistic way.  It’s a provocative word that means whatever the person spitting it out wants it to mean, making it a perfect code word for racist slurs that they can’t use in public anymore.)  To prove this point, Digby reminds everyone that similar terms were used precisely as a polished racial slurs by none other than Jesse Helms when he was giving his reasons for opposing the MLK holiday. 

Asked before television cameras to say whether he considered King a “Marxist-Leninist,” as he had suggested earlier on the Senate floor, Helms at first demurred, then said, “But the old saying—if it has webbed feet, if it has feathers and it quacks, it’s a you-know-what.” Asked again later if he considered King a Marxist, Helms said, “I don’t think there is any question about that.”


Being cute about it is one of those wingnut traits that probably grates on me the most.  Dancing around your racism and winking at the world you think agrees with you isn’t cute or funny.  Really, it’s just another strategy for wingnuts to convince themselves they’re an oppressed minority.  The Resistance has to speak in code language, wouldn’t you know?  But they’re not, really—-this Arkansas couple and Helms aren’t actually trying to hide their opinions from you.  They’re trying to make it very clear what they think without coming right out and saying it, because if they did that, they couldn’t play the victim. 

Anyway, a reader of Digby’s wrote a great email explaining that to white Southern racists and their allies who hang the Confederate flag in non-Confederate states, the flag has always represented Christian values, honor, freedom, hating commies, puppies and kittens.  As someone who lives in one of the Confederate states, I can also attest to the fact that some morons still call it The Rebel Flag, as if it’s some symbol of a strike for justice and freedom, instead of the reality, that it was a strike against freedom for enslaved people.*  The reason that puppies and kittens have been attached to the Confederate flag is for the same reason that homobigots have to paint their opposition to gay marriage as “protecting traditional marriage” and their ancestors who protested interracial marriage claimed that god separated the races for a reason—-because no one wants to admit they’re a straight-up bigot.  It’s always something else. 

However, what this does to bigots is that it aligns whiteness with honor, freedom, and perhaps puppies and kittens, and so they get into this mindset where they begin to really believe that black people can’t own puppies or kittens.  But more to the point, it also means that bigots are stuck in this loop where they can’t even imagine that Obama is not a communist, because in their binary system that’s like saying water isn’t wet. 

What’s changed for the hardened bigots is that their winking and nudging belief that they’re speaking for “real” Americans has just been dealt a serious blow.  If they’re really the majority, then no way could Obama have won, full stop.  All this silly discussion about how America is a “center-right” country that’s aimed precisely at reducing the impact of this historic election isn’t going to be much comfort to the wingnutteria.  They’re not really part of that kind of discussion—-it’s all about race and the mythical atheists (as opposed to the real ones who don’t have horns and tails) and taking away your guns and being forced to marry someone of your own sex and abortion doctors knocking at your door to tell you that your mother changed her mind 40 years after the fact.  It’s a fantasy world, in other words, and it was just introduced to some serious reality. 

One thing that was interesting about the letter I want to highlight in light of the upcoming “War On Christmas” panic is this:

In addition to white supremacy and foaming at the mouth anti-communism, the reactionary forces of the south were also dyed-in-the-wool anti-semites…..

Oh, and another particular aspect of that old southern bigotry was that the term “Christian” excluded Catholics, who could not be trusted because of their fealty and obedience to Rome, a foreign, and thus suspect, influence. It was quite a feat of cognitive dissonance to lump Jews and Catholics in with the godless Communists, as the right wing in Europe had only managed to lump together the first two as the common subject of their conspiracy theories.

Obviously, the Republican leadership is trying to replace “Jews” with “atheists” as the major threat, but I’m not so certain that the workaday and aging wingnutteria distinguishes too well between the two.  There’s been a genuine effort to eradicate antisemitism from the wingnut pantheon of prejudice, and I think it’s for genuinely cynical reasons, which is to get the racist, weak-minded base behind Israel.  You know, instead of rejecting antisemitism because it’s wrong. But dragging up the fake “War On Christmas” every year doesn’t, I suspect, do much for the cause of shutting down antisemitism, because it’s so rooted in hostility towards a Jewish population that doesn’t celebrate Christmas.  In general, you see an attempt to take old antisemitic stereotypes and just slide “atheists” into the slot where “Jews” used to be.  For instance, now it’s the “atheist” ACLU.  But if you’re willing to boil your computer and use Google to do a little searching, you’ll see some wingnuts are still holding out for the old labels.

The weirdest part of this whole thing is that while the wingnuts changed the “War On Christmas” villain from Jews to atheists, they didn’t really update any aspects of the panic so they made more sense.  It’s not just that a lot of atheists still celebrate Christmas, since most American atheists are still rooted in that cultural heritage.  Really, for an atheist from a Christian background, the question is “Christmas or no Christmas?”, not “Christmas or a generic ‘holidays’?”  I fail to see how the panic over the term “Happy Holidays” makes sense unless you’re angry at minority religions that have different winter holidays, the biggest one being Hanukkah.  (True, everyone celebrates New Year’s Eve, but getting mad because people roll up that holiday in with the others also doesn’t make sense.)  All this is just something to keep in mind as we go forward, that the vein of antisemitism hasn’t been pried from racism, homophobia, sexism, and red panicking as easily as some on the right would like to believe. 


*While Texas schools have mostly gotten away from the old-fashioned Southern way of teaching this history by claiming that the North were the aggressors and Southerners were innocent babes, they haven’t, as far as I know, rectified the tradition of glossing over the fact that the Texas war of independence was a practice run for the Confederacy.  Yep, Texas declared independence because Mexico outlawed slavery.  And won the war in fairly short order, no less, so no wonder the Confederate states thought it would be easy-peasy to do that.  But considering that one of the Confederate states had already gone through this process, the claim that Southerners thought they could leave peacefully is a joke. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:35 PM • (153) Comments

Glenn Beck apparently thinks that states still have the right to secede, and should since Obama won.  That little skirmish between the North and South doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on him.

Again, fly the damn flag.  Let your racism out.  Cry about the reprisals, but for once, LEARN that your right to express your beliefs does not protect you from everyone else expressing theirs.  Being called a bigot for being a bigot is not discrimination, it’s fact.  Lance that damn boil once and for all.

There is no possible way to hold up the Confederate flag as anything good.  It was treason against the Union.  It is the flag of losers.  It should be a reminder that if you piss off liberals enough about freedom and liberty, if you piss them off enough that they consider a war just, that they will burn your cities to the ground.

Yeah, we’d prefer to negotiate and educate, but if it’s war, we will kick your ass.  Hard.

And if the South did secede, exactly how long do you think it would take for them to devolve to third world status?  They drain taxes from the North; they always have.  They cannot support themselves.  If they secede, they lose the North’s federal tax wealth redistribution, and they can’t live without that.

Comment #1: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  12/01  at  01:47 PM

Oh, I was sure all of those people waving Confederate flags were upset about how the Transcontinental Railroad went through the North instead of the South.

Yeah…

The use of the Confederate flag today is one of the clearest examples of the postmodern phenomena of the recycling of historical reference points, but completely losing their original meaning.  Every generation, or even 10-20 years it can come to represent some new struggle and against some new threat/oppression.  I am waiting for the day with the meaning completely flips, and the wealthiest business owners in the South start to wave it in protest against the poor people who are “stealing our tax money.”  Well, you know, that’s socialism.

Comment #2: Will B  on  12/01  at  01:55 PM

Being cute about it is one of those wingnut traits that probably grates on me the most.  Dancing around your racism and winking at the world you think agrees with you isn’t cute or funny.

That’s exactly why I can’t stand Dana. His two personas here are “charming grandpa” and “reasonable, unruffled conservative among crazy angry liberals.” He doesn’t even appear to have a genuine human voice in his head telling him how stupid he is to be that smug about himself. He actually thinks he’s a decent, intelligent person, and there’s absolutely nothing in the world that could make him see reality. I’d say it must be nice to feel that good about yourself without actually having to be a good person, but since I haven’t had a lobotomy yet, I don’t think it would be.

Comment #3: junk science  on  12/01  at  02:02 PM

Eh, the South isn’t going to secede.  A bunch of wailing ninnies think they speak for the majority, but even most Republican voters aren’t going to go for this idea. It’s not like the dirty liberal hippie population isn’t high in the old Confederate states, too.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  02:05 PM

Agreed, junk.  It’s funny he thinks he’s fooling us, but I don’t think anyone is fooled.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  02:07 PM

“It should be a reminder that if you piss off liberals enough about freedom and liberty, if you piss them off enough that they consider a war just, that they will burn your cities to the ground.”

So, you libruls go about singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” when no one is looking, hmmm?

Sing, with sincerity and feeling:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea/
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me/
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free/
While God is marching on.


Also enjoyable is the new-found cavalier attitude towards war crimes perpetrated by “liberals.”  Please, please don’t raze my city, Caren.

Carry on, Christian Soldiers.

Comment #6: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:09 PM

Did we ban this guy?  Is that why he’s using a different name? Either way, it’s childish to think that if wingnuts violently wrested control of the government that they wouldn’t hit resistance, asshole.  And that doesn’t make liberals inherently violent.  Resisting a fascist coup is anti-violent in the long run.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  02:09 PM

“Resisting a fascist coup is anti-violent in the long run.”

The Marcotte Doctrine of Preemptive War?

Comment #8: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:15 PM

Sorry for ruining your fantasy.  I’ll try to think about that next time.

Comment #9: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:16 PM

Glenn Beck apparently thinks that states still have the right to secede,

Only if 2/3 agree to dissolve the Union (the number it took to put it into effect), and less than half voted for McCain! Try again, Glenn.

Comment #10: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  02:17 PM

Hey prop 2, let’s make a deal: we’ll agree that Sherman and co. were War Criminals if you do the same for Nixon/Kissinger and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Deal?

Comment #11: Smokescreen  on  12/01  at  02:18 PM

Er, not even 2/3. The magic number is 3/4.

Comment #12: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  02:19 PM

Treason.  Shoot all these terrorists as they clearly hate the USA.

It’s what right wing recommends for treasonous terrorists, isn’t it?

And if that’s too harsh, I highly recommend letting state that wants to be on it’s own, let them go.  Chances are (and the statistics say) they taking more than the fed than they’re giving, so cut them off and let them be!  I’m fine with it.  If a little racist country is what they want, let them have it.

Comment #13: ice weasel  on  12/01  at  02:20 PM

“It’s what right wing recommends for treasonous terrorists, isn’t it?”

Well, this, or tenure.  What do you propose?

Comment #14: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:21 PM

“it’s childish to think that if wingnuts violently wrested control of the government that they wouldn’t hit resistance, asshole.”


Helpful Hint: The long, skinny end goes towards the enemy.

Comment #15: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:23 PM

I thought mel-anon’s comment in the Colbert thread was spot-on. The idea that the corporate cons co-opted the old anti-semitic “Happy Holidays” furor as a bright shiny object to distract the churchgoers from reacting against the very real commercialization of Christmas makes a lot of sense.

Comment #16: Redshift  on  12/01  at  02:23 PM

Amanda, I heartily apologize. 

It seems I’ve been reading a bit too much Jim Webb lately and have plumb lost my head.

Comment #17: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:28 PM

When I was younger, I just assumed “Happy Holidays” was an easy way to lump in Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Year’s (and whatever other holiday) so you didn’t forget anything, and stores didn’t have to panic and put new stuff up every week.  This whole war on xmas thing is so much crap that I think everyone but them has realized it is.

And the confederate flag thing - it seems like more than half the country is suddenly “the south”, because I see that damn thing everywhere.

While driving through a rural area to get the the family thanksgiving, I saw a sign for six different breeds of puppies (with the line “there’s always lots of puppies here”!) and then a sign that says “abortion is murder”.  Apparently, nothing with a uterus is allowed to stay not pregnant there…

Comment #18: kryrinn  on  12/01  at  02:28 PM

Eh, the South isn’t going to secede.  A bunch of wailing ninnies think they speak for the majority, but even most Republican voters aren’t going to go for this idea.

Besides, they are far too addicted to federal tax welfare to pull it off.  The South is very heavily subsidized by the Northeast, and many of them know it even as they complain about federal this and that.

Comment #19: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  02:29 PM

The South is very heavily subsidized by the Northeast

To be fair, this is because a lot of military bases are located in the South. That will inflate the number of tax dollars they receive.

Comment #20: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  02:31 PM

“Besides, they are far too addicted to federal tax welfare to pull it off.  The South is very heavily subsidized by the Northeast, and many of them know it even as they complain about federal this and that.”

I’d like to raise the substantive question - is the South subsidized by the Northeast proper (as in, the individual taxpayers) or by the Corporations which are headquartered in the Northeast and free to move to the business-friendly New Confederacy in this scenario?

Comment #21: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:32 PM

Why are a lot of military bases located in the South, Ben?  Or, more specifically, why did all the northern bases get closed?

Comment #22: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  02:32 PM

As most corporations pay negligible federal taxes, it is the taxpayers.  If we are further subsidizing relocated corporations through the incentives these states can offer due to the pork sucking they do off the federal teat, that makes it even worse.

Comment #23: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  02:33 PM

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Comment #24: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  02:36 PM

“As most corporations pay negligible federal taxes,”

Eh, not really.

Comment #25: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:36 PM

There is no possible way to hold up the Confederate flag as anything good.  It was treason against the Union.  It is the flag of losers.

In more ways than one.

Comment #26: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  12/01  at  02:37 PM

BTW Propaganda, yer math is off - Southern States being Business Bottoms doesn’t make one iota of difference in how much those corporations pay to the federal government.  In fact, if a business relocates it contributes to the tax dollars to the fed from those states, lowering their ratio of suck to pay. 

Kind of demonstrates exactly how little corporations pay, now doesn’t it!

Comment #27: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  02:38 PM

Why are a lot of military bases located in the South, Ben?

Military bases take up a shitload of space (even more when you make contigency plans for possible future expansion), so we tend to locate them a good distance from major urban areas. So they end up in places like high desert California, the South, rural Texas, and the Great Plains rather than the Northeast.

Comment #28: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  02:39 PM

Another 50 replies and I’m sure he’ll relent.

Comment #29: norbizness  on  12/01  at  02:41 PM

I fail to see how the panic over the term “Happy Holidays” makes sense unless you’re angry at minority religions that have different winter holidays, the biggest one being Hanukkah.

As a Jew, there has never been any doubt in my mind that this was the problem. Happy Holidays started as a way to either play it safe/be inclusive of shoppers/co-workers without having to inquire what someone’s religion is. It never entered my mind that it was anti-Christmas, until some Christians came along and told me that including others in your holiday greetings is hateful to Christians. Apparently Christmas cheer is a zero-sum game.

Comment #30: chingona  on  12/01  at  02:42 PM

I think TX schools might be right to gloss over the Texas War of Independence as a dry run for the Civil War. Mexico never accepted the Rio Grande (AKA Rio Bravo del Norte) as the legitimate boundary of Texas and there were still some moderate skirmishes after independence. The issue was not settled until Texas joined the US and the Mexican-American war of the 1840s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

In other words, Texas was on shakey ground until the US Army got involved. That’s why there’s a Polk Street in every city incorporated before 1846.

The Mexican-American war was a training ground many of the leaders in the Civil War. I’ve seen a hotel that both Grant and Lee stayed in on their way to the front.

And yes. The confederate flag is a stupid symbol of a lost cause. The war was horrible for the South, but it made us stronger. Reconstuction was terribly managed, but we got through it OK and actually got a high tech economy out of the deal. Many parts of the South had electric power long before the North did. Why some of us take refuge in playing the victim is beyond me. The War is over, though it may not really have ended until LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. Listen to LBJ. He talks like you. He’s one of us. He said it’s over. Believe him.

Comment #31: Bacopa  on  12/01  at  02:44 PM

“BTW Propaganda, yer math is off - Southern States being Business Bottoms doesn’t make one iota of difference in how much those corporations pay to the federal government.”

You’re mixing things up.  I’m positing “business friendly” in the secessionist future wherein you presume that the South/New Confederacy would become a third world nation.


“Kind of demonstrates exactly how little corporations pay, now doesn’t it!”

Not really.

Comment #32: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:45 PM

If America were pro-seccessionist, they woulda elected the party that had the pro-seccession veep candidate. For some reason, that party went down in fairly inglorious defeat, and the pro-seccesion veep candidate is a laughing stock. Huh. Isn’t that interesting?

Comment #33: Scott  on  12/01  at  02:52 PM

“I fail to see how the panic over the term “Happy Holidays” makes sense unless you’re angry at minority religions that have different winter holidays, the biggest one being Hanukkah.”


Well, kinda yes, kinda no.  Hanukkah is a minor religious holiday, not “Jewish Christmas.”  So, unless you were previously scrupulous about wishing Jews a Merry Passover, Atoneful Yom Kippur, and Happy Rosh Hashana, it would be quite clear that you were denying the dominant culture its established practice and the mental repose of not feeling like a bigot for openly enjoying Christmas.

Comment #34: Propaganda Due  on  12/01  at  02:54 PM

Helpful Hint: The long, skinny end goes towards the enemy.

Here’s a thought, Prop Due.

I am a United States Marine, now in the Inactive Ready Reserve.  I love my country, and I vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, which is a vow I take very, very seriously.  I was also taught how to fire a rifle as well as a pistol.

Hence, I know what end to point.  It’s not that I’m not rather fond of peace, but, if it comes right down to it, you need to remember that not everyone who knows something about guns, or even everyone in the military, comes down on your side.  I am not saying that I would, but, if it came down to it, I am more than capable of shooting a gun or kicking your ass, and, if it comes down to having to do that kind of thing, I assure you that I wouldn’t be playing.

The difference is that I’m not a Freeper crazy.  I don’t think that this is necessary.  I think that we give people the benefit of the doubt.  But you need to lose this fantasy that everyone who disagrees with you doesn’t know how to defend themselves and the ones and ideas that they love.  They just do so very, very judiciously.

Comment #35: Atheist Feminazi  on  12/01  at  02:56 PM

Helpful Hint: The long, skinny end goes towards the enemy.

Sherman totally knew that! Imagine! Even being from the Elitist North.

Dude. Unless you think the South somehow *won* the Civil War, everything Caren said was plain historical truth. The North DID demolish the South. We can quibble over whether Sherman was right to burn a trail through Georgia, sure. Not a fan of civilian casualties. But IT HAPPENED.

Big Tough South…not actually so big or tough.

Comment #36: Well, what?  on  12/01  at  02:57 PM

I wasn’t aware that “openly enjoying Christmas” required hearing “Merry Christmas” from every miserable retail drone you encounter. Seriously, showing some respect for other denominations is “denying the dominant culture it’s established practice”?

I’m an atheist, and I openly enjoy Christmas. No one is making me feel like a bigot. If you’re insisting that not hearing “Merry Christmas” literally everywhere you go is somehow hateful or oppressive, then yeah, you’ll be made to feel like a bigot. Because you are one. And if your idea of “open enjoyment” is forcing others to say only things that will please you and make you feel good, well, you’ve got serious problems.

Comment #37: grolby  on  12/01  at  02:59 PM

“Sherman totally knew that! Imagine! Even being from the Elitist North.”

...it doesn’t matter because everybody knows that one Southerner is worth 10 of those damn Yankees…

...and somehow losing The Civil War is proof…

Comment #38: MikeEss  on  12/01  at  03:03 PM

I’m an atheist, and I openly enjoy Christmas.

What grolby said.

Doesn’t mean I’m not immune to “That’s the worst Muzak Christmas crap music I’ve ever heard. Be quiet, Christmas crazy music, or I’ll donate to charities instead of shopping”... but yeah, Christmas is fun, even for atheists.

Comment #39: Scott  on  12/01  at  03:04 PM

Hanukkah is a minor religious holiday,

Don’t be stupid.

Comment #40: gwangung  on  12/01  at  03:05 PM

“I fail to see how the panic over the term “Happy Holidays” makes sense unless you’re angry at minority religions that have different winter holidays, the biggest one being Hanukkah.”

Well, kinda yes, kinda no.  Hanukkah is a minor religious holiday, not “Jewish Christmas.” So, unless you were previously scrupulous about wishing Jews a Merry Passover, Atoneful Yom Kippur, and Happy Rosh Hashana, it would be quite clear that you were denying the dominant culture its established practice and the mental repose of not feeling like a bigot for openly enjoying Christmas.

Could someone please translate this into English?

Comment #41: syfr  on  12/01  at  03:07 PM

Oh, Prop 2.

As a Battle Hymn singing, crack shot with a rifle, patriotic liberal, I have to say: dude, shut up. Liberal /= America hating or ineffectual. I love this country. You have to remember that Schurz had the right of it by adding an important ender to the famous ‘my country, right or wrong’. More important is ‘My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

Things are starting to be set right. And considering y’all just got your asses kicked but good by a bunch of us exercising our right to vote and setting things right, I would think you might be amping down a bit. Apparently not.

Comment #42: Sarah  on  12/01  at  03:08 PM

it would be quite clear that you were denying the dominant culture its established practice and the mental repose of not feeling like a bigot for openly enjoying Christmas.

So if I wish someone Happy Holidays, I’m making them feel like a bigot? Project much?

I cannot believe I’m even engaging with you, because you are so obviously a tool, but here goes. Yes, Hannukah is a minor holiday. However, American Jews drop quite a bit of money on Hannukah presents in an effort to make their kids not feel like they got second best. (Also American Jews are American and get sucked into consumerism like everyone else.) I had always thought Happy Holidays started with retailers who just thought it would be good to be inclusive and encourage everyone, regardless of creed, to spend lots of money in their stores. Most of my life, it seems to have been used interchangably with Merry Christmas.

I know you like to flaunt your knowledge of all things Jewish, but after your challah for Passover bit on the AIDS thread, I’m not taking anything you say too seriously. For the record, people who know I am Jewish do wish me a good new year or a good holiday at Rosh Hashanah and do inquire after my Passover plans. Also, if you actually knew anything about Jews, you would know that we are very, very, very aware that we are a minority in a Christian-dominated land. It’s not like Target runs an ad that says “Happy Holidays” and we think all of a sudden we rule the roost, though that is pretty obviously the fear - give one inch to anyone that isn’t Christian and you lose that special feeling of being on top. Not very Christian of them, in my opinion.

Comment #43: chingona  on  12/01  at  03:09 PM

syfr - he means that unless you conspicuously - in his sight! - wish Jews a Merry Passover or Happy Rosh Hashana (irrespective of how little sense it would make to do so) every single year, than your intent in saying “Happy Holidays,” obviously must be hatred and oppression of Christians for daring to enjoy Christmas.

Comment #44: grolby  on  12/01  at  03:10 PM

There has to be enormous overlap between the people who object to “Happy Holidays” and the people who object to “Push 1 for English.”  What they resent—or have been persuaded to resent—is that someone (someone powerful) has decided to accommodate difference, rather than The Different sucking it up and accepting their feeling of alienation or discomfort as the cost of doing business in the U! S! A!  They’re thinking, “In America, we have Christmas,” and “In America, we speak English,” and “If you don’t like it, leave.”  They don’t believe in accommodation.  They don’t want anyone else’s life to be made marginally easier or more comfortable.  That just wouldn’t be fair.  To them.  Everyone should be inconvenienced, the Real People less so than the Fake People.

Really rather sociopathic.

Comment #45: FlipYrWhig  on  12/01  at  03:11 PM

So it comes down to tribalism, then. If Jews aren’t allowed to look forward to Hanukkah because it’s their “Christmas” (ie, a festive winter holiday that entails the exchange of presents) because Hanukkah isn’t a “major” religious observance, then what are they allowed to do? Can they celebrate Christmas like so many secular non-jews do? Can the malls go into month-long overdrive to prep for Passover?

Of course not, that’s silly, that’s not “their religion” and it’s “diluting the meaning of the holiday.”

And while we’re at it, let’s say that all of the secular people—the people who celebrate Christmas but don’t actually attend church or really care that it’s the supposed birth-date of Jesus, let’s say they can’t celebrate Christmas because that’s not the spirit of the season and their perverting the Holy Day. In that case, why bother having people say “Merry Christmas” in a shopping mall at all? What the hell are you doing preparing for the celebration of the birth of Jesus by buying gifts, you commercialist, Jesus-hating asshole?

But let’s say for the sake of argument that you are NOT allowed to celebrate a holiday unless it’s a major religious holiday. In such an event stores should not be allowed to have Valentine’s Day, Mardi Gras, or St. Patrick’s day sales or decorations. They’re not major holidays—oh wait, only the JEWS can’t celebrate non-major holidays?

It’s not so much as a Culture War but Tribal Warfare—it’s people who self-identify as Christians using their status as Christians to cudgel people of other faiths (or non-faiths). It isn’t about love, joy, and the teachings of the Savior to Love Your Neighbor. It’s about Tribal warfare, plain and simple.

Comment #46: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/01  at  03:11 PM

Before the War on Christmas bullshit I thought “Happy Holidays” was just a shorter way of saying “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year”. You know, cause the Christmas and New Years holidays are only a few days apart. Two birds with one stone and whatnot.

Comment #47: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  03:12 PM

Maybe the people who want to hear “Merry Christmas” are less invested in “Christmas” than in “Merry.”  Honestly, in what other context do you ever hear the word “merry”? 

Perhaps we can compromise.  Instead of saying “Happy Holidays” we can say “Gay Christmas!”

Comment #48: FlipYrWhig  on  12/01  at  03:15 PM

Could someone please translate this into English?

Happy Holidaze R Stoopid!! No like Happy Holidaze (or Hannukah)

Comment #49: atheist  on  12/01  at  03:15 PM

I wasn’t aware that “openly enjoying Christmas” required hearing “Merry Christmas” from every miserable retail drone you encounter.

Seriously.  When I was growing up the outrage was that Christmas was too commercialized and that we should try to remember that it wasn’t about presents or holiday sales or any of that, it was about commemorating the birth of a baby boy that was destined to grow up and get nailed to a piece of wood as a blood sacrifice to make up for the fact that human beings are flawed.

Nowadays, if someone doesn’t at least mumble “Happy Commemoration of the Birth of the Sacrificial Lamb Day”  to you as you’re purchasing your toothpaste between October 31st and December 25th, it’s an assault on Christmas.  And if you aren’t buying more stuff to celebrate said day of foreshadowing, you’re a terrible American.  Or something.  I still haven’t quite wrapped my head around the whole “stand in line in front of Best Buy at 3am to wait for the doors to open” ritual that has come around every year, but since every single damn person I know personally who participates in said ritual is either a very, very religious Evangelical Christian (note caps), Roman Catholic or Mormon, I have to assume that it also holds some deep theological significance as well.

Comment #50: NonyNony  on  12/01  at  03:17 PM

I finally had to put the smack down on my students for throwing around the term Marxist this semester. I teach a survey that ends in the early 18th century, so for most of the class we talking about a pre-industrial society so there cannot be any Marxists, Socialists, or even Capitalists. I told them they had to demonstrate they had actually read Marx before they could use Socialism as a short hand for ‘something scary and different that didn’t work’.

Comment #51: Paris  on  12/01  at  03:17 PM

syfr: Hanukkah, from a theological point of view, is not one of the holiest holidays on the Jewish calendar; Rosh Hashana (the Jewish lunar new year), Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement, where you fast and pray for forgiveness), and Passover (spring holiday, commemorating the Exodus from Egypt) are three of the five “major” holidays, the other two being Sukkot (commemorating the wandering in the desert, also a harvest festival) and Shavuot (commemorating the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai).

That said, Hanukkah is not a “minor” holiday, though it is “lesser” than the Big 5; like Purim (celebrating the events of the book of Esther) and several fast days (scattered throughout the year), it is an important holiday celebrated by Jews of all religiosity; its proximity to Christmas may account for some of its popularity among less religious Jews, but is far more incidental to its celebration than Prop would have us believe.

Comment #52: madinscriber  on  12/01  at  03:17 PM

I grew up in an area with very few Jews (yes, actually there are places in New York with very few Jews), but when I heard “Happy Holidays” I always assumed it was to include Christmas and New Year’s. As well as not letting out anyone with a minority holiday that was running at the same time. But even the hardcore Christians celebrate New Year’s. So even for a Christian talking to a Christian it would be very appropriate to say “Happy Holidays.” The *only* reason to object to this phrasing is that you actively don’t *want* to make people who don’t celebrate Christmas feel included, and the majority of the Americans who don’t celebrate Christmas are Jewish. (Most atheists do celebrate Christmas, as many posters have pointed out.)

Comment #53: Alara Rogers  on  12/01  at  03:18 PM

A couple of points.

1)  To the general post and thread:  Antisemitism is the root of modern racism, particularly against assimilationist jews.

2)  Just a reply to Bacopa—The South never really recovered from the Civil War until pretty much the Civil Rights era and the 1970s, in part because we did NOT get through Reconstruction okay.  And no, we did not develope a high tech industry until after WWII, and the first power stations were in NY and NJ, not in the South.  The Tennessee Valley Authority was created for the purpose of increasing rural electrification and general electriciy in the South, and that was in the 1930s.  Slave labor in almost all sectors of the economy in the South (lasting well past the Emancipation) prevented capital intensive versions of heavy industries from ever taking root in the South until late.

Comment #54: shah8  on  12/01  at  03:19 PM

To the right wing, “Socialism,” “Marxism,” and all their variants basically mean “something for nothing” and/or “mandatory sharing.”  And they all picture themselves being forced to give, never being happy to receive.

Comment #55: FlipYrWhig  on  12/01  at  03:20 PM

“... denying the dominant culture its established practice ...”

Do you actually read anything you post? Or do you just spend your life being irritated and looking for post-facto reasons for it?

Tell you what you should do: If you’re so mad about this issue, you should make a protest. Tell your boss you’re not showing up for work on Christmas Day! That’ll show everyone!

Oh, wait a minute ...

Comment #56: Rick Massimo  on  12/01  at  03:20 PM

Paris, please tell me you teach high school, not college.

Comment #57: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  03:20 PM

Obviously, the Republican leadership is trying to replace “Jews” with “atheists” as the major threat, but I’m not so certain that the workaday and aging wingnutteria distinguishes too well between the two.

They never have.  Michael Lind’s book Up from Conservatism has some fascinating stories about Lind’s work for Pat Robertson and how he came to realize that Robertson was basically cribbing from anti-Semitic books and just taking out the word “Jewish” from phrases like “international bankers.” 

“Atheist” has been a code word for “Jewish” for quite a while now, since at least the Russian Revolution, if not before.  It was definitely used that way in the 1930s in Italy, Germany and Spain, all of which were officially Christian countries.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  12/01  at  03:21 PM

(Most atheists do celebrate Christmas, as many posters have pointed out.)

I think my secular family celebrated “Crissmiss.”  It looks and sounds a lot like Christmas and happens at the same time, but omits that dicey “Christ” part.

Comment #59: FlipYrWhig  on  12/01  at  03:22 PM

That’s exactly why I can’t stand Dana. His two personas here are “charming grandpa” and “reasonable, unruffled conservative among crazy angry liberals.”

You may not like his personas, but you have to admit that Dana’s more worth debating seriously than morons like Propaganda Due. For example, I’m betting Dana understands what a coup d’etat actually is, where Prop Due seems to confuse it with some sort of insurgency or foreign invasion. That’s probably why he has trouble envisioning his hypothetical “South/New Confederacy” as anything other than what it would become: a banana republic with healthy doses of good ol’ boy caudillismo.

I don’t consider Dana a troll who’s simply looking to insult and de-rail; like many conservative Americans, he’s just genuinely ignorant of certain basic facts that don’t gel with his worldview. And while Dana doesn’t concede the point when he’s apprised of the facts in a particular case, he usually doesn’t keep pretending he has a case either. Engaging in Propaganda’s tortured pretzel logic would undermine Dana’s persona.

Did we ban this guy?  Is that why he’s using a different name?

You threatened to ban him for using the term “buggery.” Others of us “hipsters” (to use his favourite insult) agreed that he has the potential to be banned on the basis of a more spectacular and hateful meltdown.

So, unless you were previously scrupulous about wishing Jews a Merry Passover

Wait, you mean the holiday when you “broke challah” with some of your best friends who happen to be Jewish? That one still makes me laugh.

Prop 2, O’Reilly, Bozell and the rest of the “War on Christmas” crowd deliberately muddle generic public contexts (commerce and government policy) with the context of their own cultural and tribal insecurities and bigotries. For example, “Happy Holidays” is just good business this time of year, because of the startling fact that it’s not only Christians shopping for gifts. And it’s also good governance, at least if one happens to be a fan of the Establishment Clause.

Comment #60: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  03:24 PM

Hanukkah is a minor religious holiday, not “Jewish Christmas.” So, unless you were previously scrupulous about wishing Jews a Merry Passover, Atoneful Yom Kippur, and Happy Rosh Hashana, it would be quite clear that you were denying the dominant culture its established practice and the mental repose of not feeling like a bigot for openly enjoying Christmas.

 

I live in New York, and I find that non-Jews who actually know about these holidays do express their good wishes quite matter-of-factly—Happy Passover, Happy Rosh Hashana, an easy fast on Yom Kippur.  Most often, however, people know generally that some major Jewish holiday is coming up and they say—just like during the winter Holiday Season—“Happy Holidays”.

As for the “minor religious holiday”: really, going down that road is not a good idea.  No one knows when Jesus was really born, but based on census records, it was probably no later than 4 BC, and as for the season—it’s anyone’s guess.  Clues from the Gospels suggest, however, that he was born in early to mid-fall.  Christmas was established as a winter holiday to substitute for pre-existing pagan rites and thus ease pagans’ conversion to Christianity.  The year is off, the date is off—heck, different Christian denominations can’t even agree on the latter.  Believe me, once we start weighing the relative significance of religious holidays, at least based on historical fact, no one will win.

But thanks for educating me that the “dominant culture’s” “established practice” is to be as exclusionary as possible, and to see other religions’ holidays as an affront.

Comment #61: Amused  on  12/01  at  03:25 PM

So, unless you were previously scrupulous about wishing Jews a Merry Passover, Atoneful Yom Kippur, and Happy Rosh Hashana, it would be quite clear that you were denying the dominant culture its established practice and the mental repose of not feeling like a bigot for openly enjoying Christmas.

I see that Prop is yet another of those conservatives who do their primary worshiping at Wal-Mart.  Otherwise, why would he care whether a clerk says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”?

Not to mention that, as all Christians know, Christmas begins on Dec. 25 and ends at Epiphany on Jan. 6.  Everything before then is Advent, and yet I don’t hear people bitching that the clerks are saying “Merry Christmas” instead of the correct “Happy Advent.”  Somehow, it’s only the people like Prop who don’t actually go to church who get all bent out of shape about not being told “Merry Christmas,” probably because they’re ignorant of Christianity and don’t actually know the proper nomenclature.

Comment #62: Mnemosyne  on  12/01  at  03:27 PM

Not really relevant, but my mother told me an amusing story.  Two wars on Christmas ago some of her Baptist coworkers were loudly complaining about “taking the Christ out of Christmas,” when my mother, a Catholic, chimed in with, “Well, you have been taking the mass out of Christmas” 

Wasn’t Christmas a minor holiday throughout most of Christian history?

Comment #63: Fatman  on  12/01  at  03:30 PM

you have to admit that Dana’s more worth debating seriously than morons like Propaganda Due.

I don’t have to do any such thing. You might find debating with Dana worthwhile, but I think it a better use of one’s time to reason with a brick wall or a toaster than try to change the mind of someone who already knows he’s right. It is good for him that he has enough personal dignity to stop arguing when he’s obviously lost rather than talk himself into stupidity like so many trolls here. If only he’d figure out that pattern and stop wasting his time putting forward lame arguments in the first place.

Comment #64: junk science  on  12/01  at  03:32 PM

But you need to lose this fantasy that everyone who disagrees with you doesn’t know how to defend themselves and the ones and ideas that they love.  They just do so very, very judiciously.

In fact, you’d better believe that those of us who don’t spend a lot of time talking about what we can do as a means of threat or intimidation on a daily basis are probably more likely to kick your ass.  Less talk = more action.

Comment #65: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  03:33 PM

Amanda, you don’t have horns and a tail?  You’ve suddenly become much less cool.

Comment #66: Rob  on  12/01  at  03:34 PM

Baptist coworkers were loudly complaining about “taking the Christ out of Christmas,” when my mother, a Catholic, chimed in with, “Well, you have been taking the mass out of Christmas”

This is just full of win.

And also…challah? On Pesach? Did he really say that somewhere? Jesus. I don’t think you can *get* more wrong. Or more…unkosher?

Comment #67: Well, what?  on  12/01  at  03:34 PM

I think my secular family celebrated “Crissmiss.” It looks and sounds a lot like Christmas and happens at the same time, but omits that dicey “Christ” part.

We didn’t deliberately omit the “Christ” part, since we played and sang lots of Christmas Carols that had Christian references. We just didn’t worry much about what they meant, other than promoting good ideas like “peace” and “love your neighbor.”

We celebrated all the major holidays of the American Secular Tradition—Christmas, Easter, The Fourth of July, Halloween, and Thanksgiving.

Comment #68: Redshift  on  12/01  at  03:37 PM

Wasn’t Christmas a minor holiday throughout most of Christian history?

Someone more theologically versed than I am should weigh in, but I think you’re right. I think Easter was the big deal for most of history, and of course in the U.S., Easter in popular culture has been even more stripped of spirituality than Christmas. When I lived in South America, Christmas was a big deal, but Easter definitely was more important. Some of this may have been economic. I lived in a rural farming community where Christmas fell at a period of great scarcity and Easter fell when everyone was flush with cash from the cotton crop. But I think the difference also was religious - all of Semana Santa was a huge deal and all the relatives living in other countries or in the cities come home when they didn’t come home for Christmas, etc.

Comment #69: chingona  on  12/01  at  03:37 PM

Easter was a bigger deal until the later 19th Century when Christmas got commercialized. Even today in the Eastern Church, Easter is a much bigger deal.

Comment #70: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  03:39 PM

They never have.  Michael Lind’s book Up from Conservatism has some fascinating stories about Lind’s work for Pat Robertson and how he came to realize that Robertson was basically cribbing from anti-Semitic books and just taking out the word “Jewish” from phrases like “international bankers.”

“Atheist” has been a code word for “Jewish” for quite a while now, since at least the Russian Revolution, if not before.

Once they saw how a dog whistle draws the more dim-witted hounds, it became difficult for them to stop using it. The funny thing is, the grand-daddy of anti-Semitic books, the Protocols, is itself a forgery, largely cribbed by a Russian Tsarist from an earlier French satire of Napoleon III.

My favourite code word for da Joos, sadly under-used these days, is “rootless cosmopolitan.” If only guys like Bozell hadn’t ensured that their followers were too ignorant to parse the term, it would really tie into their anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, ultra-nationalist peasant mentality.

Comment #71: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  03:39 PM

My favourite code word for da Joos, sadly under-used these days, is “rootless cosmopolitan.”

I find these days the code word most commonly used is “zionist”, used especially by people who seem to have no idea what “zionist” really means.

Comment #72: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  03:41 PM

“rootless cosmopolitan”

Is that the one with the twist of lemon instead of the maraschino cherry?

Comment #73: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/01  at  03:42 PM

No one knows when Jesus was really born, but based on census records, it was probably no later than 4 BC, and as for the season—it’s anyone’s guess.  Clues from the Gospels suggest, however, that he was born in early to mid-fall.

Hmm ... I usually hear the estimate as being in the spring, since the shepherds are watching their flocks by night, which implies they’re busy keeping predators away from the spring lambing.  No one living in the desert is going to be camping out with their flocks in the dead of winter—it gets down to 30 degrees or less at night, and not much higher than the 40s or 50s during the day.

The one very clear thing from the Gospels is that Jesus was not born in the winter or anywhere close to the winter solstice.  That comes from the Romans, which is why some Christian denominations (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) do not celebrate Christmas at all.

Of course, putting Jesus’ birthday in the proper season would get way too confusing at this point since he probably was crucified around Passover and we’d have to combine the two holidays.  “We’re celebrating that Jesus was born, died, and resurrected ... all in one week!”

Comment #74: Mnemosyne  on  12/01  at  03:45 PM

It’s not like the dirty liberal hippie population isn’t high in the old Confederate states, too.

It is high and we tend to be more obnoxious than liberals elsewhere.  Take our local mall, for example.  The airbrush shop across from the NASCAR store is getting a hell of a lot more traffic for their Obama merch than Rednecks ‘r’ Us is for their go-fast, turn-left idols.

Comment #75: Spooky Skeptic  on  12/01  at  03:46 PM

Not to mention that, as all Christians know, Christmas begins on Dec. 25 and ends at Epiphany on Jan. 6.  Everything before then is Advent, and yet I don’t hear people bitching that the clerks are saying “Merry Christmas” instead of the correct “Happy Advent.” Somehow, it’s only the people like Prop who don’t actually go to church who get all bent out of shape about not being told “Merry Christmas,” probably because they’re ignorant of Christianity and don’t actually know the proper nomenclature.

My dad is German Catholic and he hates how Americans put up their decorations in November, insist that they be told “Merry Christmas” before it’s actually Christmas, and trash their tree and decorations on the morning of the 26th if not the night before.

Comment #76: annejumps  on  12/01  at  03:50 PM

Some interesting Christmas history from Wikipedia ....

In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, which suggests that Christmas was not yet a feast at this time.

....

The earliest reference to the celebration of the nativity on December 25 is found in the Chronography of 354, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome in 354. In the East, early Christians celebrated the birth of Christ as part of Epiphany (January 6), although this festival focused on the baptism of Jesus.

...

In the Early Middle Ages, Christmas Day was overshadowed by Epiphany, which in the west focused on the visit of the magi.

...

The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned Emperor on Christmas Day in 800. By the High Middle Ages, the holiday had become so prominent that chroniclers routinely noted where various magnates celebrated Christmas.

....

Following the Parliamentarian victory over King Charles I during the English Civil War, England’s Puritan rulers banned Christmas, in 1647.[33] Pro-Christmas rioting broke out in several cities, and for weeks Canterbury was controlled by the rioters, who decorated doorways with holly and shouted royalist slogans.[33] The Restoration of Charles II in 1660 ended the ban, but many clergymen still disapproved of Christmas celebration.

Now that’s a War on Christmas.

But wait, there’s more ...

  Christmas fell out of favor in the United States after the American Revolution, when it was considered an English custom.[34] George Washington attacked Hessian mercenaries on Christmas during the Battle of Trenton in 1777. (Christmas being much more popular in Germany than in America at this time.)

...

Charles Dickens’s book A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, played a major role in reinventing Christmas as a holiday emphasizing family, goodwill, and compassion as opposed to communal celebration and hedonistic excess.[35] In America, interest in Christmas was revived in the 1820s by several short stories by Washington Irving which appear in his The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon and “Old Christmas”, and by Clement Clarke Moore’s 1822 poem A Visit From St. Nicholas (popularly known by its first line: Twas the Night Before Christmas).[36] Irving’s stories depicted harmonious warm-hearted holiday traditions he claimed to have observed in England. Although some argue that Irving invented the traditions he describes, they were widely imitated by his American readers.

...

Christmas was declared a United States Federal holiday in 1870, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.

Comment #77: chingona  on  12/01  at  03:54 PM

I don’t have to do any such thing. You might find debating with Dana worthwhile, but I think it a better use of one’s time to reason with a brick wall or a toaster than try to change the mind of someone who already knows he’s right.

It wasn’t a command—you don’t literally “have to admit” anything.

I start from the proposition that, no matter how many facts any of us present to Dana, we’re not going to change his mind. I suppose “debate” was the wrong word for me to use, since one doesn’t really have debates with the blog equivalent of the L. Frank Baum’s Scarecrow. He serves the same purpose, a fairly harmless living strawman who willingly provides us with an opportunity to state the facts.

I can understand why you’d find the “calm and rational” personas grating. However, I find it more entertaining when someone like Prop 2 tries to wear Dana’s mask and then inevitably slips into crazy insults, desperate logical fallacies, and made-up “facts” (often exhibiting grotesquely bigoted assumptions) that show us all the resentment and insecurities that lie underneath.

But then, I have a weird idea of what constitutes entertainment. And if Amanda, Pam, Jesse or Auguste asked me to stop baiting the trolls, I would of course accede to their wishes.

Comment #78: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  03:54 PM

Yeah, I’m done with the thread-jacker.

Comment #79: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  03:55 PM

But I am amused that he tacitly admitted that he’s all for a fascist coup.

Comment #80: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  03:56 PM

Is that the one with the twist of lemon instead of the maraschino cherry?

All I know is that it’s very pricey, served mainly in NYC, and is ordered primarily by “hipsters.”

I think the special ingredients are the blood of Christian infants and flakes of gold leaf.

Comment #81: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  03:57 PM

“rootless cosmopolitan” - very chic, but a little namby-pamby. I prefer the old Catholic catechism classification: infidel. It’s used almost exclusively to refer to Muslims, but technically, Jews qualify. Because of its history, the word evokes the image of a fierce, scimitar-wielding warrior - much more bad-ass than some urbanite / pink beverage.
/sidetrack

Comment #82: madinscriber  on  12/01  at  03:59 PM

Back to the original subject : I expect to see a lot more of the Confederate battle flag in the next four years..  I encourage people to follow the lead of the NAACP and refer to it as the “Confederate swastika” whenever the opportunity presents itself.  With luck, maybe that’ll knock off some of the casual use of that flag, and put on the defensive the KKK types who adore it.

Comment #83: PWI  on  12/01  at  04:10 PM

The *only* reason to object to this phrasing is that you actively don’t *want* to make people who don’t celebrate Christmas feel included

Alara R for the win!

Comment #84: atheist  on  12/01  at  04:21 PM

The prominence of Christmas Day increased gradually after Charlemagne was crowned Emperor on Christmas Day in 800.

Great, so not only is my ancestor responsible for so much other crap in our culture - he’s responsible for there being a Christmas in our culture to have a war on.

(Descendant of William the Conqueror and Charlemagne here.  ::sighs:: )

Comment #85: Atheist Feminazi  on  12/01  at  04:22 PM

Hmm ... I usually hear the estimate as being in the spring, since the shepherds are watching their flocks by night, which implies they’re busy keeping predators away from the spring lambing.  No one living in the desert is going to be camping out with their flocks in the dead of winter—it gets down to 30 degrees or less at night, and not much higher than the 40s or 50s during the day.

You are right, Mnemosyne, spring is another candidate based on the references to shepherds.  The autumn theory comes from other references, to Sukkot and John the Baptist’s birth.  Some folks have suggested that a winter date is plausible because Mediterranean winters can be quite mild, with day temperatures reaching into the upper 60’s.  Of course, they ignore the fact that in a desert climate, the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures can be tremendous, especially during the winter.  So even if the winter when Jesus was born was nice and balmy, it still would have been too cold shepherds to be out with their flocks at night.  Bottom line, we just don’t know, and the substitution for pre-existing pagan holidays is the most plausible explanation for the date.

Comment #86: Amused  on  12/01  at  04:31 PM

Asked before television cameras to say whether he considered King a “Marxist-Leninist,” as he had suggested earlier on the Senate floor, Helms at first demurred, then said, “But the old saying—if it has webbed feet, if it has feathers and it quacks, it’s a you-know-what.” Asked again later if he considered King a Marxist, Helms said, “I don’t think there is any question about that.”

Maybe this works because Communists are the niggers of politics.

Comment #87: atheist  on  12/01  at  04:34 PM

Where do I begin?  You Communist bigots have no rite calling us conservatives racists, as you are racist against us white people.  We in The Heartland of the USA of America have always been on the forefront of human rites, for example, Wyoming, the state next to mine, was the first state to outlaw illegal slavery in 1929.  Of course, legal slavery continued for some time beyond that there, but they did outlaw the other.  My pastor at the The Reformed Aryan Church of White Butte always says that we should extend a hand to ethnic types, even if it’s to use that extended hand to push them away, back where they came from.  This is the Christian thing to do and this is a Christian nation (by the way, Happy Jesus’ Birthday, you LIEbral atheists!!), so stop trying to put white folks in chains by taking away there 2nd Amendedment Rites, as guns are what separate us from the animals.

Comment #88: Rugged in Montana  on  12/01  at  04:39 PM

Wasn’t Christmas a minor holiday throughout most of Christian history?

I don’t think that it has, but it was controversial at some points, in part because of its pagan history.  Cromwell banned Christmas from England, and I think that getting it back is part of what made it so beloved by the English and their descendants whose culture has dominated ours.

Comment #89: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/01  at  04:40 PM

as guns are what separate us from the animals.

Silly boy, it’s weaseling out of things that separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.

/Homer

Comment #90: Well, what?  on  12/01  at  04:44 PM

I find these days the code word most commonly used is “zionist”

Does that even count as a code word?  It’s pretty straightforward.

Comment #91: Seraph  on  12/01  at  04:50 PM

In fact, you’d better believe that those of us who don’t spend a lot of time talking about what we can do as a means of threat or intimidation on a daily basis are probably more likely to kick your ass.  Less talk = more action.

Silly Ms. Kate.  If you’re not obsessed with guns then you can’t possibly know anything about them.  And if you don’t talk about kicking people’s asses constantly then you can’t possibly be capable of doing it.  Everyone knows that the only people who can actually walk the walk are the people who are too busy talking the talk.

Comment #92: Atheist Feminazi  on  12/01  at  04:53 PM

Just make the Confereate Battle Flag illegal to distribute and possess.

That should make Marie happy.

Only if Marie is a right-wing authoritarian who hates the First Amendment—someone like yourself, for instance. Who is this Marie, anyhow?

Oh, and while you’re at it, shut down any other opposition citing *racism*, even if there is none.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Bob Z: one of the few people here who doesn’t associate the “Stars and Bars” with the cause of slavery and segregation.

Comment #93: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  05:03 PM

“Just make the Confereate Battle Flag illegal to distribute and possess.”

...if we haven’t done that for the Nazi swastika and flags, why do it for the Confederate Flag of Bigotry?  Better for them to keep the flags “proudly” displayed so the rest of us can recognize the people displaying them for exactly what they are…

“Oh, and while you’re at it, shut down any other opposition citing *racism*, even if there is none.”

...oh Bobby!  You’ve been called on your bigotry multiple times here on Pandagon alone (I know I’ve done so myself on multiple occasions), and it hasn’t “shut down” your “output”.  I don’t know if you’re specifically a racist, but you’re definitely a bigot, and apparently goddam proud to be one…

Comment #94: MikeEss  on  12/01  at  05:06 PM

Pointing out that asshats fly the Confederate flag= keeping said asshats from doing so.

Does Bobby even realize that he’s basically replicating what Rugged says?  Look at Rugged’s 2:39 and Bobby’s 2:51 and tell me what the difference is between them.

I mean, I know right-wingers don’t get parody, but this is pretty hilarious.

Comment #96: Mnemosyne  on  12/01  at  05:17 PM

Just make the Confereate Battle Flag illegal to distribute and possess.

Naw, we won’t do that - it would make the flaming racist stupids harder to identify if they didn’t so kindly help us all out with a show of their stars and bars!

Comment #97: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  05:30 PM

as guns are what separate us from the animals.

Well, we all know that wingnuts always need something to separate them from the animals, be it a gun or a crowbar ...

Comment #98: Ms Kate  on  12/01  at  05:33 PM

I alaways took zionism to be a form of extreme Israeli Jingoism. So, to me, not everyone of the Jewish faith was a zionist, and not every zionist is Jewish. Although I’m not sure why Israeli Jingoism has a special name—something about history I think, but Jingoism in general drives me nuts.

I know not everyone criticizing the policies of Isreal are anit-semetic, thought sometimes it seems that in some forums (not here, thank heavens) every piece of criticism is labeled anti-semetic.

Comment #99: mapaghimagsik  on  12/01  at  05:34 PM

“Paris, please tell me you teach high school, not college.”

Oh, Ben, if you only knew just how deeply ignorant the average college student is. It is to weep (as I do, when it comes time to grade exams).

On Xmas as “minor”: If you think about it a bit, Christmas, whether “major” or not, should be far less a big deal than Easter. Easter celebrates the central point of Christianity (redemption/resurrection). Christmas is just the promise of Easter; nothing to shrug off, but not the main event. It shouldn’t be a big deal.

I miss the fundamentalists who used to rant against Christmas trees as satanic idolatry.

General historical consensus on birth of J. of Nazareth is sometime in the period 6-4 BCE. The monks who first conceived the Christian dating system in the 8th(?) century miscounted.

oh, and as everyone in SC knows, the Confederate flag is all about “heritage”. They never state the precise nature of the heritage, however. It’s impolite.

Comment #100: wapsie  on  12/01  at  05:40 PM

“I alaways took zionism to be a form of extreme Israeli Jingoism.”

No, if you believe there should be a Jewish homeland, you’re a Zionist. The definition has been horribly perverted recently to the point where people take it to mean “extreme Israeli jingoism”. This twisted definition has been promoted both by anti-semites and extreme Israeli jingoists, oddly enough.

Comment #101: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  05:45 PM

Oh, and by John Hagee type Christians have also promoted that definition.

Comment #102: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  05:49 PM

FlipYrWhig:

To the right wing, “Socialism,” “Marxism,” and all their variants basically mean “something for nothing” and/or “mandatory sharing.”

Have a Very Marxist Christmas, everyone!

Now pardon me while I browse over to Amazon. They kids want some of that “something for nothing”, and Santa (Red Suit, hangs out halfway between Socialist Canada and Communist Russia) needs to deliver the goods!

Comment #103: Snarki, child of Loki  on  12/01  at  05:59 PM

Ignorant Americans use the word ” socialist” because “I find certain people scary because they want to ensure that I don’t starve or die without medical care”.

Rich and right-wing Americans use the word ” socialist” because they want ignorant Americans to continue to find certain people scary.

Comment #104: seeker6079  on  12/01  at  06:10 PM

“Here’s what you do:
Just make the Confereate Battle Flag illegal to distribute and possess.
That should make Marie happy.
Oh, and while you’re at it, shut down any other opposition citing *racism*, even if there is none. “

Look, pointing out that what a person said is douchy =/= denying that person the right to say to said douchy thing.

BTW, who the hell is Marie?

Comment #105: fatman  on  12/01  at  06:21 PM

wasn’t the whole christmas story only in one gospel and the last one to be written at that? it stinks of myth and resembles too many other gods’ nativities. Also, I just read in national geographic that Harod never had male infants slaughtered either….he wasn’t all that popular, having not been of a particular sort of jewish family, so you’d think having everyone’s male infants slaughtered would incite one hell of an uprising that would definitely have been written about by Harod’s bibliographer, Josephus.

Comment #106: stephanie  on  12/01  at  06:27 PM

It is interesting to note that when the Canadian Airborne Regiment started to fail to pieces under weak command authority and out-of-control troops (which later led to the tragic torture-murder of a Somali teenager) the Regiment’s soldiers started having pictures taken of themselves with the Confederate flag.  (That should have raised a million warning signals, not least because the outfit was about to be deployed to Africa.)

Comment #107: seeker6079  on  12/01  at  06:35 PM

Have a Very Marxist Christmas, everyone!

If we let the Marxists take over, it’ll be like Christmas _every day_!  Hey, waitaminit…

Comment #108: FlipYrWhig  on  12/01  at  06:43 PM

I alaways took zionism to be a form of extreme Israeli Jingoism.

That’s a common but incorrect perception that anti-semites exploit. Likudnik-ism (or whatever the Hebrew equivalent is for the Israeli equivalent of American Republicanism/neoConservatism) better describes “extreme Israeli Jingoism.” Zionism is the philosophical basis on which the state of Israel was founded, so to say that Zionism is a form of any pro-Israeli viewpoint, extreme or not, is for the most part redundant.

In short: not all Jews are Zionists; not all Zionists are Likudniks.

Comment #109: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  07:02 PM

Yep, Texas declared independence because Mexico outlawed slavery.

There was a little more to it than that. Basically, the Mexican government was too far away and too weakened by constant revolution to effectively administer the Texas territory. Add linguistic and cultural differences between the Anglo Texans and the Mexicans, and you’ve got a revolution waiting to happen.

But you’re right that slavery was a large part of it. The Mexican government had always outlawed slavery, but it turned a blind eye to it in Texas for a long time. When it finally decided to start enforcing the law (along with certain other laws such as tariffs), that lit the fuse.

Comment #110: Bitter Scribe  on  12/01  at  07:11 PM

Regardless of the definition of socialism used, I rarely read the slightest criticism of socialism in these posts. Merely making light of any who have concerns about socialism, marxism, communism, or collectivism. The only ism that gets roasted is capitalism.

Comment #111: Roberta Ely  on  12/01  at  08:02 PM

Zionism is the philosophical basis on which the state of Israel was founded, so to say that Zionism is a form of any pro-Israeli viewpoint, extreme or not, is for the most part redundant.

There’s another angle on that word too. As I understand it, a person who feels that Israel should stop having a racial test for citizenship, and should start granting full political rights to its ethnic and religious minorities, also is going against Zionism. As I’ve understood matters, Zionism is not only support for Israel, but support for an explicity Jewish-run Israel.

Comment #112: atheist  on  12/01  at  08:03 PM

I rarely read the slightest criticism of socialism in these posts.

You could pioneer this, Roberta.

Comment #113: atheist  on  12/01  at  08:05 PM

As I’ve understood matters, Zionism is not only support for Israel, but support for an explicity Jewish-run Israel.

How about a non-Palestinian run Palestine? See how absurd that sounds?

Comment #114: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  08:07 PM

Look, I’d love a one state bi-national solution, too, but that would work as well as trying to put Yugoslavia together again at this point.

Comment #115: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  08:09 PM

How about a non-Palestinian run Palestine? See how absurd that sounds?

Yeah, but Palestine isn’t a state. It’s just an area. The Israelis run Palestine.

Comment #116: atheist  on  12/01  at  08:20 PM

Well, I think the Palestinians should have a state on the land they now occupy, and that the Palestinians should run it and I doubt anyone would have a problem with the idea of Palestinians running a Palestinian state. Or the Kosovars having a Kosovar state, or Tibetans having a Tibetan state, etc, so why the issue with Jews having a Jewish state?

Comment #117: Ben D.  on  12/01  at  08:26 PM

Ben:

Maybe I’m being too pointed. I don’t really know if Israel should go for a two-state solution, or a one-state solution, or what. My main aim was simply to point out that “Zionist” means more than a person who supports the state of Israel, as Graccus seemed to be implying.

Comment #118: atheist  on  12/01  at  08:33 PM

Military bases may be disproportionately in the south for another reason: the ease of year-round operation.  Training and ops can be 24/7/365 if necessary, and you don’t have the larger outlays involved in maintaining operations and infrastructure in harsher northern climates.

Comment #119: seeker6079  on  12/01  at  08:47 PM

Zionism is too subjective a word to feel comfortable using.  It’s an acid insult in the mouths of some people, a simple political reference point for others, and a handy label for the expansionist Israeli right for others.

Comment #120: seeker6079  on  12/01  at  08:48 PM

That’s why it’s so handy as a code word for anti-Semites.

Comment #121: chingona  on  12/01  at  09:15 PM

How about a non-Palestinian run Palestine? See how absurd that sounds?

This is where it starts to get weird.  Why is the comparison not to a non-Israeli running Israel?  Can any Jewish person come in from Florida and start governing over someone of Arab descent who’s lived there all their life because Israel needs to be run by Jewish people?

I know that Israel is to American Jews what Ireland is to Irish-Americans, but I think that gets pretty weird, too.

Comment #122: Mnemosyne  on  12/01  at  09:43 PM

Also, I just read in national geographic that Harod never had male infants slaughtered either….he wasn’t all that popular, having not been of a particular sort of jewish family, so you’d think having everyone’s male infants slaughtered would incite one hell of an uprising that would definitely have been written about by Harod’s bibliographer, Josephus.

Not to mention the incredible similarity between the slaughter of male infants that leads to Moses being sent down the river in a basket, rescued by an Egyptian princess, surviving to adulthood and becoming God’s messenger on earth.

It’s not like anyone had a reason to try to alter the facts around Jesus’ birth to make him seem more like the answer to a prophesy now, did they? rolleyes

People believe Christmas has always been a big deal b/c of Dickens; just like they’ve learned their Genesis stories from John Milton.  History has nothing to do with it.

Comment #123: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  12/01  at  09:44 PM

Sam Houston knew what the results of the Civil War would be,  and was de facto run out of the state for that.  Did they teach that in Alpine, Amanda?

the Mexican government was too far away and too weakened by constant revolution to effectively administer the Texas territory

Substitute California for Texas, and you have the same story, minus slavery.

Still, there were those who followed the Stars and Bars here on the Best Coast:

The only Confederate Flag captured in California during the Civil War took place on July 4th, 1861 in Sacramento. During Independence Day celebrations, secessionist Major J. P. Gillis celebrated the independence of the United States from Britain as well as the southern states from the Union. He unfurled a Confederate flag of his own design and proceeded to march down the street to both the applause and jeers of onlookers. Jack Biderman and Curtis Clark, enraged by Gillis’ actions, accosted him and “captured” the flag.[3] The flag itself is based on the first Confederate flag, the Stars and Bars. However, the canton contains seventeen stars rather than the Confederate’s seven. Because the flag was captured by Jack Biderman, it is often also referred to as the “Biderman Flag”.

Eighty-eight violent incidents of various sizes were fought in California, many of them against outlaws trying to capture gold for their own benefit. (No captured gold was sent to the Confederacy.) Most of the fights were guerrilla battles, or in the terminology of the day, battles with “partisan rangers.” Indeed, a few men left the guerrillas under the command of the ruthless school teacher, William Quantrill, in Missouri, and came to California to train supporters there. <u>One partisan warrior, Dan Showalter, once robbed a stagecoach of all its gold, leaving a receipt behind with the driver to keep him out of trouble with his bosses.</u> The westernmost attack related to the Civil War occurred just outside downtown San Jose. A bronze historical plaque marking the site identifies it as a battle with “outlaws,” rather than a battle of the American Civil War.

Leave it for Southern honor to have it’s greatest revolutionary flower in the Golden State ;>)

My husband told me an interesting anecdote once. He grew up in Florida (where the south is North and the north is South) and in one of his history classes, his teacher asked students if “we” won or lost the civil war. The answer was not unanimous (and apparently, no one said “neither” or “both”—which, in retrospect, seems like the obvious answer, considering it was a civil war and all).

Comment #125: pdrydia  on  12/01  at  10:33 PM

Roberta:

Regardless of the definition of socialism used, I rarely read the slightest criticism of socialism in these posts. Merely making light of any who have concerns about socialism, marxism, communism, or collectivism. The only ism that gets roasted is capitalism.

Could this be because the writers and commenters have better things to do than to criticize things that don’t actually exist in the location at which the criticism is directed?
See:
Does the United States have socialism, Marxism, communism, or collectivism? Noooooo.
Does the US have capitalism? Yes!
Does the US have stupid people who blather about socialism, Marxism, communism, and collectivism? Bingo!

Comment #126: Rebecca  on  12/01  at  11:00 PM

Just for the record—the Israeli citizenship isn’t limited to Jews, and the Israeli government isn’t comprised exclusively of Jews.  Those are common misconceptions promoted by anti-Semites who have rebranded themselves as “anti-Zionists”.  Twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Muslim and Christian Arabs, and there are non-Jews in the Knesset.  Non-Jews can also acquire residence through naturalization (I once met a naturalized Israeli who is an ethnically Chinese Buddhist).  Jews do get special treatment as far as immigration under the Law of Return, including immediate citizenship, but Israel isn’t the only country to have such policies.  Germany has a similar law for ethnic Germans living in diaspora, for example.  There are laws and policies in place meant to ensure that Jews remain the majority both in the population and in the government—but that has a lot to do with the Jews’ long history of persecution and isolation as demonized minorities in countries that always treat them as foreigners and the ultimate Other.  The purpose of these policies is to ensure that there is one country in the world—one very, very, very tiny country—where Jews can be free from the “Otherness” that has been imposed on them for so long (and continues to be imposed), a country where they can be, well, simply mainstream.

This is not to say that I agree with all of Israel’s policies towards ethnic and religious minorities, for I most certainly don’t.  At the same time, while so many self-appointed “anti-Zionists” preemptively whine about being slapped with the anti-Semitism card and crucified by the shadowy “Lobby”, I find it disturbing that I have to make this disclaimer—that I don’t agree with everything Israel has done or does—any time I say anything remotely positive about Israel.

Comment #127: Amused  on  12/01  at  11:09 PM

There’s another angle on that word too. As I understand it, a person who feels that Israel should stop having a racial test for citizenship, and should start granting full political rights to its ethnic and religious minorities, also is going against Zionism. As I’ve understood matters, Zionism is not only support for Israel, but support for an explicity Jewish-run Israel.

Giving that other angle credence is sort of like letting irredeemable Jim Crow racists define “states’ rights” here in the U.s.; the concept in general is a reasonable founding political doctrine of the U.S., but it wasn’t put in place by the Framers specifically to preserve slavery or second class citizenry for blacks as the Confederate revanchists would have us believe.

There may be some sort of religious/ethnic preference for naturalisation to Israel, but from what I understand there are non-Jewish Arab citizens and non-white Jewish citizens there also. From what I’ve read on the matter they’re often treated as second-class citizens in practise by their fellow citizens, but in the eyes of the law they’re still full citizens with more rights than those Jim Crow era blacks enjoyed (e.g. voting without poll taxes, serving in parliament, etc.).

All of which gels with the underlying philosophy of Zionism as it’s defined. Zionism wasn’t originally about support for a “Jewish-run Israel.” Rather, “Israel” is the name applied to what was really supported: a Jewish-run (but secular, even socialist) state. The seemingly intractable problems come from the geographic location where that state was placed 60 years ago, and Johnny-come-lately Jewish fantasist settlers who brought the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ into the mix.

“Zionist” means more than a person who supports the state of Israel, as Graccus seemed to be implying.

I’m not “implying” anything. The definition I gave is what the term means, not only in original theory but for many Israeli citizens—even white Jewish Israeli ones—in practise as well. There are outspoken Israeli Zionists who are horrified by the likes of Netanyahu and Sharon—I hear they’ve even formed parties that oppose Likud’s vision of Zionism.

Seriously, if someone’s going to place other meanings on a baggage-laden term or concept, especially completely erroneous ones like mapaghimagsik’s, I’m going to correct him regardless of politics. For example:

The “Stars and Bars” carries its considerable baggage not because it’s the flag of “states’ rights” in original concept, but because it’s the standard of “keeping the n*ggers in their place”—“states’ rights” was a secondary issue, a means toward the main end. Try and pretend it’s all about the poor states fighting against the big bad Federal government, and I’ll call BS using historical facts. And I’ll inquire into why they’re BSing in the first place.

Zionism, on the other hand, carries its considerable baggage because, over the years, others have twisted its original concept, which is not about excluding non-Jews but providing a secular Western state where, unlike France during the Dreyfus affair, ethnic Jews can feel safe in their citizenship along with everyone else. If someone’s going to claim Zionism is all about expansionist and exclusionary behaviour, I’ll call BS using historical facts. And I’ll inquire into why they’re BSing in the first place.

I don’t want to pull this thread off track, so I hope that helps tie things back to Amanda’s original post.

Comment #128: Gracchus  on  12/01  at  11:21 PM

[quoting Amanda]“Resisting a fascist coup is anti-violent in the long run.”

The Marcotte Doctrine of Preemptive War?
Propaganda Due on 12/01 at 12:15 PM

Um, no, she said “resisting a fascist coup,” not trying to smother the possibility of one in advance.

And that is generally what leftists have done throughout history. It is the ruling class that generally changes its own rules, in ever-more outrageous attempts to stay in power, that is the aggressor; then sometimes the outraged people fight back, even more rarely they more or less win.

The Civil War is a perfect case in point; Abraham Lincoln did not begin by enacting sweeping (or even incremental) policies against slaveholders—he probably would have stood by his promises to do no such thing but he had no chance as the secessionist plots (such as seizing arms from Federal arsenals) began before he could even take office in 1861. I believe that several states had already declared secession before his inauguration, and Lincoln took no armed action until the attack on Fort Sumter.

When he did act, he took and stuck to the position that the Confederacy had no legal existence, and that the state governments professing allegiance to it were illegal criminal conspiracies. It was a matter of treason to our common nation, and not a conflict between two rival confederations.

So it has been in the struggle between left and right in general; however much some leftists might muse or rant about the desirability of being proactive against rightist outrages, the latter act first and give leftists more than pretexts—you put our backs to the wall and give us literally no choice but to fight or die.

So don’t come crying when you lose.

Although the same humane considerations that lead to Hamlet-like procrastination on the left generally also makes us softhearted (and a bit softheaded) about post-conflict sentimentalism, so nostalgia for the Good Old Days before tends to get far more sympathy than it should.

So cry us a river…you can probably build a theme park along it eventually…

Comment #129: Mark Foxwell  on  12/02  at  12:13 AM

Non-Jews can also acquire residence through naturalization (I once met a naturalized Israeli who is an ethnically Chinese Buddhist).  Jews do get special treatment as far as immigration under the Law of Return, including immediate citizenship, but Israel isn’t the only country to have such policies.  Germany has a similar law for ethnic Germans living in diaspora, for example.

That’s why I was comparing it to Ireland—IIRC, if you’re an American you can become an Irish citizen by having one Irish grandparent.  Might even be great-grandparent—I’m too lazy to look it up right now.  But it’s not as though Jewish people are the only ones who long to return to a mythical homeland.  Hell, John Ford made a whole movie about it using every Irish stereotype under the sun.  Like you said, a big part of the problem was trying to establish that homeland on one of the most disputed pieces of real estate on Earth.  As with so many things in the Middle East, the British sure as hell didn’t help with their idiotic policies.

It’s more that Ben managed to hit on one of my pet peeves, which is conflating “Jewish” with “Israeli” when talking about the Middle East.  It’s not like there’s a hive mind that makes all Jewish people (much less all Israelis) have the same opinion about what’s going on there.  Plus it tends to get used by the neocons to try and bludgeon people into agreeing with them.  (Not that Ben was doing that, but that’s one of the reasons it grates on me.)

No, I’m not Jewish, but at least I know you don’t break the challah at Passover.  wink

Comment #130: Mnemosyne  on  12/02  at  12:42 AM

Except that Ben didn’t do that, at least not in the way you’re talking about. Yeah, taking the most rightwing Likud position and saying that is The Jewish Position is really grating (as in, Is Obama good for the Jews? He has once or twice hinted that maybe Palestinians are human beings. Might be bad for the Jews ... yes, super annoying). What Ben is taking about is defending the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. As in, there is nothing wrong with Jewish people wanting to have a country that is theirs, anymore than there is anything wrong with the Tibetans or the Kurds or the Palestinians wanting a nation. In that context, it’s meaningless NOT to conflate Israelis and Jews. There are Israeli citizens who are not Jewish, but Israel is a Jewish state. The very name of it means the Jewish people. That’s its whole reason for existing. That was the context of Ben’s comments, which is not remotely what you’re talking about.

(And given that at this point everyone in the top levels of Israeli politics is Israeli-born, sometime second or third generation, the notion they’re going to wake up and say “Shit, call Florida, we need a Jew to run this place” is pretty far-fetched.)

Comment #131: chingona  on  12/02  at  01:57 AM

Ben, any national/ethnic state concept is beyond my comfort level regarding jingoism. “My only nation is the international working class”, and all that.

My experience is as a left-winger in Quebec. I can’t stand the stench of nationalism anymore. It corrupts everything it touches, and everything ends up revolving around national disputes instead of the class struggle. You give Ireland as an example. Ireland is precisely an example of what the Left should NOT do. Ireland is in the grip of reaction even though the Left had thrown its weight in with IRA and Sinn Fein. Reactionary Catholicism holds the country in its iron grip (just like Quebec!).

I support the Palestinian people but only out of solidarity towards anti-colonial struggles. I don’t believe a national state is a solution. Nationalism is the act of natural enemies (the national bourgeoisie and workers) lying in the same bed, while natural allies (workers of different nations) keep apart. It’s counterproductive and silly.

Comment #132: BlackBloc  on  12/02  at  03:30 AM

Except that Ben didn’t do that, at least not in the way you’re talking about.

Sorry, I should have been more clear—Ben wasn’t specifically doing it in the way I was talking about.

But when his response to talking about zionism is “How about a non-Palestinian run Palestine?” it’s a conflation of “Israeli” and “Jewish” to me that, again, is reminiscent of what the neocons do even if he’s trying to do it from the other side of the aisle.  Especially since, as several other people have pointed out, you don’t actually have to be Jewish to be an Israeli citizen or to be in the government.  It’s very unlikely that a non-Jewish person would be elected Prime Minister any time soon but, hey, I never thought a black guy would be President of the United States in my lifetime, so who knows.

So if Israel did have a prime minister who was not Jewish, would it cease to be a Jewish state since you would have a non-Jew running Israel, as Ben seemed to imply?  Or would the religion of the prime minister not matter, because Israel is a Jewish state, so a non-Jewish Israeli could run the country just fine?

That’s the question that Ben set up in my mind when he conflated Jewish and Israeli the way he did.

Comment #133: Mnemosyne  on  12/02  at  03:36 AM

One other thing:  I’m American enough that I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a state religion, any state religion, which is where some of this is coming from.  However, since it seems like pretty much every other country in the world has an official state religion, it’s not like it’s weird or unusual for Israel to have one.*  We’re the weird ones for not having an official religion.

* Yes, technically they don’t have one but c’mon.

Comment #134: Mnemosyne  on  12/02  at  03:46 AM

wasn’t the whole christmas story only in one gospel and the last one to be written at that? it stinks of myth and resembles too many other gods’ nativities.

See if you can hunt up a copy of Robin Lane Fox’s The Unauthorised Version.

Comment #135: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/02  at  05:22 AM

Giving that other angle credence is sort of like letting irredeemable Jim Crow racists define “states’ rights” here in the U.s.

I disagree Gracchus. I think its important to point out that Israel has racial criteria for citizenship, something that US racists have had to accomplish by stealth and under bullshit covers like “State’s Rights”.

Comment #136: atheist  on  12/02  at  09:16 AM

I disagree Gracchus. I think its important to point out that Israel has racial criteria for citizenship, something that US racists have had to accomplish by stealth and under bullshit covers like “State’s Rights.

Then it’s also important to point out, as Amused did, that it’s a non-exclusive preference. And it’s also important to point out, as Mnemomsyne did, that Israel isn’t alone in giving such preferential treatment to people by accident of birth. And finally, it’s impotant to note that the U.S. is one of the countries that does that, for children of U.S. citizens—nothing to do with Jim Crow or Chinese Exclusion racism anymore, but a lot to do with nationalism in general.

I’m not as heavily into the Marxist analysis as BlacBloc is, but like him I’m not a fan of ethnicity-based nationalism (including that of underdogs like Palestine). But it’s something we apparently have to live with for the immediate future. The U.S. itself has at its heart the idea that this is more state than nation, and Zionism as I understand it holds a similar ideal, even though it arrives at it from the other direction.

My point in all of this is to say, mention anything you want—it obviously leads to interesting discussions. But if one is going put forward a term as a perjorative or as a justification for bad behaviour, one should at least take the time to understand its history and origins, and the different ways its proponents interpret it now. If more people did that with the term “Zionism,” the focus on Israel’s worst behaviour these days would not be on some vast swath of Zionists, but on the major culprits: Likud.

And if they did it more with the concept of “states’ rights,” (I’m trying not to derail, Amanda) it would be seen to be used by our Confederate revanchists in the same way that Likud uses Zionism: as a BS fig leaf for racism that’s divorced from its original (and for many) current meaning.

Just doing that would make it a lot less likely that critics of right-wing Israeli behavior could be unfairly accused of anti-semitism, because the more you fine tune, the more you shut out people who (deliberately or unwittingly) conflate American Jews with Israeli Jews with Zionists with Likudniks.

Comment #137: Gracchus  on  12/02  at  10:49 AM

For the people asking about the likely time of birth for JC, I highly recommend Price’s Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Price is a liberal Biblical scholar (discovered him via The God Who Wasn’t There DVD) who politely dissects the gospels and comes to the conclusion that there isn’t even enough definitive evidence to say that JC was born, let alone when. Very interesting, and extremely well-written.

Comment #138: Ellen  on  12/02  at  12:09 PM

<i>Reactionary Catholicism holds the country in its iron grip (just like Quebec!).</i?

The same could be said for much of Massachusetts.  Ironically, it is the very anti-democratic traditions of that same faith that have perpetuated a state and local entrenched machine run top-down diocesan governance system such that those same parochial reactionaries and the Catholic church cannot undo gay marriage.

Comment #139: Ms Kate  on  12/02  at  12:18 PM

Personally, I hate this whole “War on Christmas” crap because, frankly, there should be a War on Christmas. If by “war” you mean “an open acknowlegement that this country is comprised of many faiths (and non-faith! although everyone has non-faith of one flavor or another, and the atheist just believes in one less god than the Christian / Muslim / Jew / etc.) and that no one faith should take precedence over the others.”

God forbid that someone (the retail malls no less, god help us) notice that October—November—December contains quite a few sacred holidays of several traditions and, you know, it might be nice and inclusive to accept that fact, rather than deny it fervently. (To the idiot who said that it’s clearly a slur against Christians if you don’t observe all the OTHER holy days, fuck you. Seriously. I am Wiccan and I appreciate “Happy Holidays” as a nice, tolerant gesture - I don’t whip around and grill them about why they didn’t wish me a Super Samhain. What a tool.)

As for the other “War on Christmas” fodder, like O’Reilly dragging out the fainting couch everytime a public school has to do something OTHER than a Bethlehem play or a public library can’t put up a nativity scene, once again - this is how it should be. This is not a Christian nation and it was never intended to be - and frankly your precious founding fathers would be moritified at the very thought. My kid is not going to be forced to participate in a Bethlehem play and if you think that’s unreasonable, I’d like to see you howl when they throw a fertility goddess play and expect your little Christian angels to participate. You don’t even want facts like evolution taught in school, but you want your fairy tales pandered to and everyone else’s outlawed. Ugh.

Comment #140: Ellen  on  12/02  at  01:13 PM

Ellen, you too?

Damn, like flies to honey.

Oh, and word to the whole damn post.  I think they SHOULD perform the mysteries at every major Christian holiday that is based on a pagan one, just so that they at least have a sense of their historical roots.

Comment #141: INTPagan  on  12/02  at  02:41 PM

Ellen, to be fair, there is about as much evidence for Jesus of Nazareth’s historical existence as there is for any other non-elite person whom historians supposed to have lived before 500 CE. Zoroaster and Buddha have only religious traditions to vouch for their historical existence. (There’s probably lots of documentation for Mohammed, but I don’t know my history of early Islam well.) 

I daresay there’s considerably more certainty about the history of the Jesus movement among first century Jews and the early Church that came from it than there is about any tradition or historical precedent claimed by US Wiccans. Be careful.

None of this, of course, excuses the asshattery of so many who claim to be followers of Jesus.

Comment #142: wapsie  on  12/02  at  02:45 PM

Wapsie - who claimed historical precedent here?

Wicca was created in the 1950s by Gerald Gardner and, while loosely based off of what was known of nature-based religion in Britain, little had survived both the outlawing of witchcraft as a civil offense and the Englightenment (which was much worse in terms of destruction of the old religions that still remained).  Little is known about the actual practices of ancient peoples, and Wicca has never framed itself as a reconstructionist religion along the lines of Druidism or Asatru.

Just a heads-up, nothing hostile.  Any Wiccans you hear talking about how this is THE OLD RELIGION ZOMG probably do not know what they are talking about.

Comment #143: INTPagan  on  12/02  at  02:54 PM

Wapsie, I recommend that you read Price’s works. The gospels of JC are especially problematic because they actually contradict real, historical facts, like for instance the “slaughter of the innocents” that simply did not happen. And JC’s non-historical veracity is a *big* problem for literalists because the Romans kept very, very good records about cults, notable persons, and subversive movements.

I don’t really get what your point about Zoroaster is…I have no reason to believe that he exists, either, without some coroborating historical evidence. My concern is that a LOT of people - including atheists - don’t realize just how little evidence there is that JC existed…not are many aware of how much evidence AGAINST it there is. I don’t have a bone to grind, just pointing out some good literature that I found interesting.

By the way, Wapsie, I notice you call JC “Jesus of Nazareth” - I recommend you read Price’s book if ONLY to find out why Jesus was not “of Nazareth” as the legend goes - that’s a mistranslation from “Nazorene” which was a separationist sect. Interesting stuff. See what I mean about misinformation about JC? Most of what you “know” you don’t know - you are just absorbing it from the culture around you.

With regards to Wicca and historical accuracy, I do not see a parallel. I was pointing out that we don’t have to take JC’s actual existence as the given that American society insists he must have. If you have a problem with any of the “historicity” of Wicca (most of which, actual WICCANS happily dispute with each other in good spirts - we don’t have a One True History that everyone has to pledge allegiance to), I’m perfectly happy to accomodate your doubt and not scream in horror. smile

...

INTPagan, ack, I am afraid I will disappoint you, but I actually do follow more closely the “reconstructionist” lines rather that a strict Gardner interpretation. I see no reason not to, because historical “accuracy” isn’t the basis of spiritual beliefs. But (Wapsie) here’s the difference between me and the Real True Christians: I am not trying to push my religion on anyone else, nor am I trying to get preferencial or “only” status for my religion by setting up my religious rights on public property or in public schools. I am, in fact, perfectly happy to live my life quietly and without bothering anyone - I doubt more than 6 people in Real Life know what religion I am. I don’t push my religion on anyone…but I expect to be afforded the same courtesy.

Comment #144: Ellen  on  12/02  at  03:26 PM

Ellen -

Sorry; to clarify - the difference between you and the people I was talking about is that you know what you’re talking about here, if that makes sense.  You know enough to know who Gerald Gardner is, and to know what “reconstructionist” means, and that’s more than what a lot of your average Wiccans know.

It doesn’t bother me when people do their own thing, but sometimes it does stick in me a little bit when people claim to practice something (like a religion) and they have no idea what they’re doing.  Does that make sense?  It’s one thing to know about something and then modify it; it’s another to hear something somewhere and, knowing nothing about it, claim it.

Comment #145: INTPagan  on  12/02  at  03:35 PM

Ah, INTPagan, I understand now. No worries, then. smile

I expect the phenomena is mroe popular than we realize. There are a *lot* of “Christians who know almost nothing about the Bible - I get a lot of shock and disbelief from “Bible literalists” who are astonished (astonished!) to learn that the Bible mandates that a raped “city girl” marry her attacker. How can you believe something to be the literal, complete Word of God and yet not care to know what it says? And the answer is that they think they know what it says, distilled through people they’ve assigned Trusted Status.

You get this with Wicca, but for different reasons. Yes, you get the obligatory Charmed fans who wouldn’t know Gardner from Gandalf, but I try not to hold it against them. They’ve taken a first step away from “this is my religion because Mom/Dad/Society assigned it to me” towards “this is my religion because I like it”. The next step - and I think most people get there - is to stop and realize, “Hey, if I can be any religion I want, I can research them ALL and pick the ‘best’ one for me”. Comparison shopping, it’s wonderful.

I expect all religions get this. There are “atheists” who just want to shock and pretend that they’ve got the real Matrix-truth that the rest of the cows don’t have. There are “buddhists” who are in it for the incense and the comfy robes. And there’s got to be at least one “mormon” out there who just likes the idea of multiple wives. I only find it annoying when they don’t take that step from infancy to maturity. But, in my experience, you see this most often with Born Christians than with X Converts - once you’ve converted to something, it’s easier to convert again because you realize the world didn’t end… (I think divorce is the same way.)

Good to meet another pagan online, though. smile What is the INT, though? Or is it INTP, Myers-Briggs style?

Comment #146: Ellen  on  12/02  at  04:00 PM

Yeah, it annoys me more with Christians mainly because the larger percentage of them (not all) think that their religion is the only truth, period, and then they are incredibly underinformed about their beliefs.  I find it amusing, when people proselytize to me, to pull out the example that you gave there, actually - either that or the fact that God likes rape better than homosexual sex (re: Lot and his daughters).

INTP, although I do not test very strongly on the T side of the T-F axis.  INXPagan would have made less sense to people, though, and it’s way better than INFPrincess (my teenaged screen name).

Comment #147: INTPagan  on  12/02  at  04:13 PM

Letters from the Earth (Mark Twain) is lovely for those Old Testament stories. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance to overcome, though - I had a HUGE fight with my otherwise massively-intelligent father about the “tribe of Benjamin” story where the remaining men in the tribe “carry off” into the bushes several hundred virgins as “wives”. I thought it was fairly obvious that, duh, the story involved rape. Dad was horrified. I was so surprised that I laughed in his face and said, “What, you thought they were PROPOSING in the bushes? And if the woman didn’t like the guy that caught her, she got to go back for another choice?” He was furious, wouldn’t talk to me for hours, and then brain-scrubbed the whole thing as one of those Old Testment things that don’t really matter / count. Frustrating, because in all other respects, he’s quite a genius.

Nevermind that nice NT verse that says that JC didn’t abolish the OT and anyone who removes a single word from the OT or fails to observe it is going to hell, so nyah!

Robert Price has been a huge solace for me coming from that background. He’s very polite, but absolutely resolute in gently prying away all the BS. And he finds stuff that I honestly did not know about - like “Nazorene” or the apostles’ lists not matching up - simply because there’s so MUCH to find. Very fascinating.

Myers-Briggs is funny for me. I guess I don’t test well - I’m “officially” an ENTJ, but I was 50% on the N and T, and very close on the E. J was the only thing I was really strong on. But, I think my MB personality description sounds suspiciously like my astrology sign description, and they are both fairly flattering and vague, so take what you will of THAT. smile

Comment #148: Ellen  on  12/02  at  04:42 PM

Ellen:

There are a *lot* of “Christians who know almost nothing about the Bible - I get a lot of shock and disbelief from “Bible literalists” who are astonished (astonished!) to learn that the Bible mandates that a raped “city girl” marry her attacker. How can you believe something to be the literal, complete Word of God and yet not care to know what it says? And the answer is that they think they know what it says, distilled through people they’ve assigned Trusted Status.

So true - I’ve recently been chatting about Prop 8 and, tangentially, the Sodom story, on a blog with a fundamentalist guy (surprisingly civilly considering that he is batshit insane) and it’s plainly obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone who thinks that “Christianity is a religion of monogamy” or who outright denies that his own book calls Lot a righteous man…

He also pulled the “oh, you’re so condescending” card when I pointed out that he seemed to be unaware that a. rape is a crime of power and the vast majority of rapists are psychologically sound, and b. that hospitality was a huge deal at the time the Bible was written and rape of guests was consequently a huge sin.

Oh, and the best bit? I went to the blog this morning to see if he’d replied to my latest comment (he’s in California, so he usually catches my comments right as I go to bed) - and the blog is now locked to invited users. He didn’t even try banning me first. :D :D :D

Comment #149: Rebecca  on  12/02  at  07:57 PM

Isaac Newton was born on Dec 25th, which is calendrically handy for atheists. You can hang apples on the tree.

Comment #150: clew  on  12/02  at  11:27 PM

Just doing that would make it a lot less likely that critics of right-wing Israeli behavior could be unfairly accused of anti-semitism, because the more you fine tune, the more you shut out people who (deliberately or unwittingly) conflate American Jews with Israeli Jews with Zionists with Likudniks.

Gracchus

I honestly think this view is unrealistic. There is definitely still real racism against Jews in North America, and I think Amanda’s larger point about the anti-semitic origins of the “war on Christmas” and other “culture war” issues, is completely valid. It also appears to me that some celebrated critics of Israel criticize out of an actual anti-Jewish racism.

At the same time, however, to believe that, if one makes a genuine effort to be pro-Jewish, that the corporate media, and especially the Israel lobby, will then allow you to criticize the excesses of the Israeli state, is quite naive. It seems to me that in reality, US opinion on Israel is distorted by two separate forces: unthinking racism against Jews, and unthinking chauvanism in favor of Israel. Any attempt to change US relations with Likud, or any other portion of Israeli politics, must somehow navigate a passage between these two monsters.

Comment #151: atheist  on  12/03  at  11:00 AM

I honestly think this view is unrealistic.

Ok, how about “less likely in the reality-based community”? The MSM and Know-Nothings like Buchanan and Coulter are by definition intellectually lazy and/or pandering to anti-semitism.

What I’m discussing here is being able to have a substantive debate in a place like Pandagon about what amounts to Likud policy without lazily and erroneously bringing in all Zionists or all Israelis (it seldom gets to “all Jews” on the left, unless someone slips).

to believe that, if one makes a genuine effort to be pro-Jewish, that the corporate media, and especially the Israel lobby, will then allow you to criticize the excesses of the Israeli state, is quite naive

I’m not saying anything about being “pro-Jewish,” I’m talking about being precise in one’s terms. Compare:

“Likudnik policy has led to horrific war crimes against Palestinians—American politicians really must stop supporting Likud.”

vs.

“Zionist policy has led to horrific war crimes against Palestinians—American politicians really must stop supporting Zionism.”

Now the second statement is technically true (Likudniks are considered a sub-set of Zionists). But, in a conversation between liberals and/or progressives, which is more likely to bring up the usual accusations of anti-Semitism due to the dog-whistle baggage it carries (and not only on the far right but also on the far left)?

You navigate between Scylla and Charybdis by being precise, and letting morons like Pat Buchanan or Douglas Feith crash head-on to one or the other. Liberals and progressives can do better than them.

Comment #152: Gracchus  on  12/03  at  11:23 AM

OK Gracchus, maybe you’re right about the term “Zionist”. It appears that our disagreement is mainly semantic, in any case- we seem to be in substantial agreement about most things. Maybe I’ve been hanging out with too many ultra-left people.

I’m still unconvinced that the status of Israeli Arabs is really the same as Israeli Jews, de Jure (Obviously, it’s de facto different, as you’d expect). I’m having trouble finding hard data on this.

Comment #153: atheist  on  12/03  at  12:24 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.